[Wondergirl]

You’re still marching aren’t you? So I suppose that makes us the Church Militant. Then there’s the Church Suffering – they are in that place you don’t believe in – and the Church Triumphant. All belong to the Kingdom of God. There is only One Church, currently separated by death.

The Church Triumphant is in heaven.

Amen.

Small c for catholic

[Tj3]

So far, neither you, Tom, or anybody else has shown where Scriptures hold themselves to be the sole authority in matters of faith. In fact, as De Maria has shown, they allude to the authority being corporate, i.e. “THE CHURCH”.

First, scripture does tell us this, for example:

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.

As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.

[classyT]

First, scripture does tell us this, for example:

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.

As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.

What you said is excellent! I know I am always agreeing with you but I loved the scriptures that you used. Very good. I don't know how they can poo poo it? It is right there in black and white.

[JoeT777]

First, scripture does tell us this, for example:

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.

As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.

What you said is excellent! I know i am always agreeing with you but I loved the scriptures that you used. very good. I don't know how they can poo poo it? It is right there in black and white.

I don't see much excellence or wisdom, T. There are a few problems with what's being suggested. The first of which should be obvious.

If in fact we are to take 2 Tim 3 16-17 to be Scriptures' authentication and authority then we should only be reading the Septuagint, because that WAS the Scriptures when these verses were penned.

But, let's pretend to ignore the obvious and continue to look at these verses.

Verse 14: But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been committed to thee. Knowing of whom thou hast learned them:

The imperative is to continue with those things we have learned, knowing from who you have learned them. Now who might these teachers be? What about Paul who was Timothy's teacher? What about the other Apostles who for the most part taught by word of mouth?

Verse 15: And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

To know implies 'right reasoning'. Therefore, verse 15 is instructing us to use right reasoning in Scripture. But, to reason, one must first learn how to reason; these instructions wouldn't come from the Church would they? In Timothy's example they came from a member of the Church, the Apostle Paul. The Holy Scriptures here, again, are those of the Septuagint. But, most Bible-Only folks believe in a dispensation that invalidates them. More important, if we are to ONLY receive our instruction from the Holy Spirit, why doesn't it say so here?

Verse 16: All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

All scripture are indeed inspired by God. Yes very profitable for teaching and correction; but Scripture is not the 'only' profitable learning tool. And Holy Scripture can be used to instruct, but not mandated to be used. But where does it say they have sole authority in our faith? And where in these scriptures does it suggest that it is the sole revelation of God. As too, to take this verse correctly, we would have to say All Catholic Scripture is indeed inspired by God. You see, it was the Catholic Church that Holy Scriptures were entrusted; it is the Catholic Church given the Authority to Teach in the offices of the Magisterium.

Verse 17: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Considering the source, it seems strange that this verse is quoted; that is, to be PERFECT IN GOOD WORKS. Are we agreeing that 'faith is dead without works'?

The misrepresentation of these verses is exactly why Timothy was advised to live as One in Christ, 'But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error,'

JoeT

[JoeT777]

The Church Triumphant is in heaven.

small c for catholic

I notice, one small step... for a bad speller.

[Tj3]

If in fact we are to take 2 Tim 3 16-17 to be Scriptures' authentication and authority then we should only be reading the Septuagint, because that WAS the Scriptures when these verses were penned.

That was a translation of the scriptures. (BTW, I have a copy of the Septuagint and have referenced it on occasion).

Verse 14: But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been committed to thee. Knowing of whom thou hast learned them:

The imperative is to continue with those things we have learned, knowing from who you have learned them. Now who might these teachers be? What about Paul who was Timothy's teacher? What about the other Apostles who for the most part taught by word of mouth?

Let's ponder this for a moment. In school, what are you expected to accept as truth - what you are taught from the textbooks, or whatever the teacher says? If the teacher were to tell you something other than what the textbook says, something which he or she believed but which was not a proven fact, they would be facing potential dismissal depending upon how serious it was. One teach not far from here had that happen when he taught that the holocaust was a hoax.

So it is scripture that is the standard, not the teachers.

Verse 15: And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

To know implies 'right reasoning'.

Really? Methink that you are mixing knowledge with analysis. One can know something without any analysis. Children in particular learn that way.

Therefore, verse 15 is instructing us to use right reasoning in Scripture. But, to reason, one must first learn how to reason; these instructions wouldn't come from the Church would they?

You are adding to scripture.

Verse 16: All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

All scripture are indeed inspired by God.

I am glad that we agree on that point.

Yes very profitable for teaching and correction; but Scripture is not the 'only' profitable learning tool.

True or not, the Bible tells us that we are to depend upon one source. No other source is given. To say otherwise is to add to what God's word says.

Verse 17: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Considering the source, it seems strange that this verse is quoted; that is, to be PERFECT IN GOOD WORKS. Are we agreeing that 'faith is dead without works'?

This is clear that it is our faith which will result in good works. I have endorsed the belief all along that faith without works is dead. But you need to understand what the word faith means in the original Greek. However that is a different topic for a different thread.

[gromitt82]

Where does Scripture say it is the standard?

And, of what is Scripture the standard?

And if Scripture is the standard, shouldn't we be able to find that statement in Scripture?

All important religions are explained and/or reinforced by books which are considered as sacred by their followers. Mostly, because religion, as history, is basically transmitted from one generation to the next in writing.

Thus, you have the Upanishads, the Hindu Scriptures that constitute the essential teachings of Vedanta.

Or the Qur’an, the Sacred Scripture of Muslims.

Or the Dhammapada, a versified Buddhist scripture, traditionally ascribed to the Buddha himself. Probably, the best-known texts from the Theravada canon.

Or the Jewish Talmud, with its two components, the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE).

Or the famous Chinese I Ching, describing the Chinese ancient system of cosmology and philosophy.

And we have the Bible, or the Book, or the Scriptures.

John Piper , a theologian and Baptist pastor, writes:

“We are people of the Book. We know God through the Book. We meet Christ in the Book. We see the cross in the Book. Our faith and love are kindled by the glorious truths of the Book. We have tasted the divine majesty of the Word and are persuaded that the Book is God's inspired and infallible written revelation. Therefore, what the Book teaches matters. Doctrine is important for worship and life and mission. Education for Exultation is education saturated by the Bible”.

Whether it is considered as standard or not, I guess it is up to us. Yet, I would say that, if nothing else, Jesus’ Message should be taken and considered as our standard pattern of life to follow because it comes all the way directly from our Savior’s lips.:):)

[Akoue]

What you said is excellent! I know i am always agreeing with you but I loved the scriptures that you used. very good. I don't know how they can poo poo it? It is right there in black and white.

I don't believe it is anyone's desire to "poo poo" 2Tim.3.14-17. But it is important, since this is after all Holy Scripture, not to misrepresent what it says. As RickJ has already demonstrated in post #6, this passage does not by any means endorse the doctrine of sola scriptura; instead it tells us that "the sacred writings" (i.e. the Septuagint, including books which are regarded by many as deuterocanonical) are useful for the purposes of instruction and are inspired by God. Now this is nothing which "they"--i.e. those participants in this discussion who reject the doctrine of sola scriptura on the grounds that it is not Biblical--disagree. Quite the contrary. Surely the frequency with which Catholic posters here cite and discuss Scripture gives the lie to the idea that somehow Catholics just don't care about the Bible. It is rather the case that Catholics do not regard the Bible the the whole of God's revelation to his people: Scripture is only a part--albeit an essential and indispensable part--of that revelation.

And Catholics are by no means alone in this. The doctrine of sola scriptura is itself a relatively recent theological innovation, one which was utterly foreign to the earliest Christians. We know that the very first Christians did not hold this doctrine since the NT hadn't yet been written, and it took some time after the books of the NT were written for them to circulate at all widely. We know that the generation of Christians after them didn't endorse this doctrine because it is absent from their writings and because their writings show us that they regarded oral Tradition as no less divinely inspired than the books of Scripture themselves. We know that the generation after that also regarded Tradition as divinely inspired because the writings of this period included Tradition along with Scripture and apostolic succession in the rule of faith. And so it goes for each succeeding generation of Christians until we get to the Rennaissence. It was then that the doctrine of sola scriptura made its first appearance.

But, it will be said, the mere fact that Tradition had always been regarded as enjoying equal standing with Scripture is insufficient to prove that each generation of Christians wasn't in error, beginning with the first generation for whom there was as yet no NT. But think for a moment what that commits one to saying: It commits one to the view that Christ failed to keep his promise, that the Paraclete was not in fact sent to preserve the Church that Christ had established from error. Leaving to one side the question whether the Church established by Christ was one and the same as the Catholic Church, it requires one to hold that from the very beginning, the Holy Spirit failed to guide the people of God, this for the reason that not only is there no evidence that the early Christians held the doctrine of sola scriptura but the existing evidence is, in fact, univocal that they recognized Tradition as having equal standing with Scripture.

There are some who pay no attention to what the history of our faith teaches us about such questions, who adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura despite overwhelming historical evidence--evidence accepted by, among others, most prominent Lutheran historians--that this doctrine is a sixteenth century theological innovation without historical precedent in the earliest centuries of Christianity. What then can justify the doctrine of sola scriptura? Well, by its own lights, it ought to be--nay, must be, on pain of inconsistency--be justified by Scripture itself. There are, however, insuperable difficulties facing this attempt at justification.

First, there is the question about which books are to be recognized as Scriptural. The only existing canon recognized by the NT is the OT, including the so-called "apocryphal" books rejected by most sola-scripturists. It has long been recognized that the NT itself refers to, and even quotes, texts which are exluded by the overwhelming majority of sola-scripturists from their preferred canons of Scripture, a fact which gave Luther (though not Calvin) considerable pause. This would mean that, among others, the book of Enoch ought to be regarded as divine Scripture--if, that is, we are to use the NT as our guide to which texts are canonical and which are not. But this poses the additional problem of determining which texts belong in the NT: The only place where the NT gives us a clear indication of the canonicity of any of the texts now included in the received canon of the NT is at 2Peter 3.16, where it is clear that some of Paul's letter had come to be regarded as Scriptural. Sadly, no mention is made of which letters, so that doesn't help us very much. The titles of most of the books of the NT were not assigned to them until the second century, so the NT doesn't even let us know whether, for instance, the Gospel of Matthew was in fact written by Matthew. This is itself something that is received as a matter of Tradition. This presents a nexus of difficulties which sola-scripturists simply cannot resolve without violating the doctrine of sola scriptura: Many books of the of the NT weren't attributed to, say Matthew or whomever, until at least a century after Christ's death, and so without appeal to Tradition there is no way to settle (a) who wrote them and (b) which books should be included in the NT. (Luther, recall, wished to remove James, Jude, and Revelation. By his own account, he rejected Maccabees on the ground that it would seem to support the doctrine of Purgatory, a doctrine which he had antecendtly come to reject.)

Second, there is the fact that Scripture itself not only fails to espouse the doctrine of sola scriptura, it expressly endorses the normative worth of oral Tradition. Some of these passages have already been mentioned by RickJ and De Maria, but it is worth mentioning them again, alongside several others, since the proponents of sola scriptura have yet to address them. They include:

1Cor.11.2: "maintain the traditions just as I have handed them on to you"
1Cor.11.23: "you received from the Lord what I also handed on to you"
1Cor.15.3: "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn received" (what follows is essentially a creed)
Eph.4.2: "For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus"
2Thess.2.15: "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter"
1Tim.4.16: "you will save both yourself and your hearers"
1Tim.6.20: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you"
2Tim.1.13: "Hold fast to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me"
2Tim.2.2: "what you have heard from me through my many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well"
2Tim.3.14: "continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"
Heb.2.1: again mention is made of "what you have heard"
Heb.2.3: "it was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him"
Heb.13.7: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you"
2Pet.3.2: ""remember the words spoken in the past"; "spoken through your apostles"

Now to Catholics, and to the many non-Catholics who recognize the authority of Tradition, the doctrine of sola scriptura looks like the outright rejection of a vast portion of God's revelation to us. There is a tendency for some sola-scripturists to paint the Catholic, et al. position as one that is deflationary about Scripture, one that fails to accord God's revelation its proper due. But, as we can see, it is the sola-scripturist who is guilty of devaluing God's revelation, by adhering to only one part of it and disregarding the rest. It is thus not surprising to find disagreements about the meaning of Scripture: Catholics and others hold the Biblical view that Tradition, that the teaching authority of those who exercise ecclesial authority (exousia) ought to guide us in reading Scripture. In Acts 8, Philip asks the Eunuch who is a dutiful reader of Scripture the following question: "'Do you understand what you are reading?'" And the Eunuch replies, "'How can I, unless someone guides me?'" This is sound thinking. And we know that it is important that those who guide others be given the authority to do so, since Acts 15.24 records the displeasure of the Apostles with those who proceed "without instructions from us". For Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and others, this authority is one that was given to the Twelve and passed from them to others. And we know that this authority is trasnmissable because we see its transmission in the NT itself, as some are given the authority to teache by the Apostles and those whom the Apostles have appointed. But we can set the issue of Apostolic Succession to one side for now. In the meantime, it remains for the sola-scripturists among us to show, for every one of that passages cited above, that it is not in fact talking about oral Tradition. Then he or she must provide unambiguous Scriptural evidence that the Bible itself endorses the doctrine of sola scriptura. This will require more than passages which affirm the value of Scripture, since this is not in doubt. Then, once such evidence has been proffered, some account has to be given of the means by which the sola-scripturist arrives at his or her preferred canon of Scripture, this for the reason that, as pointed out above, the NT nowhere indicates which books are to be accounted canonical.

Good luck with that.

[JoeT777]

True or not, the Bible tells us that we are to depend upon one source. No other source is given. To say otherwise is to add to what God's word says.

And what verse says we should depend on no other source but Scripture? In fact Paul teaches that Timothy should teach. 11 These things command and teach: (1 Tim 4:11). He didn't tell Timothy to write Scripture or read Sctipture. But to 'TEACH.'

And what about 2 Time 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

Oh, yes don't forget 1 Tim 6:2 "These things teach and exhort."

Why didn't Paul tell us what he meant --- Just read the Bible for your revelations? In fact, why did God bother to beget a son? Why didn't God just send a BOOK?

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Having grown up and lived for years in the heady atmosphere of the Lutheran version of sola scriptura, I now am conflicted (thanks, Akoue!). Lutherans have their own version of Tradition in that they accept the writings/teachings of certain Church Fathers and in particular, their own Martin Luther. They accept the three Trinitarian creeds (written by Church Fathers) and practice the tradition of teaching those who want to hear and learn. Lutherans do not individually practice sola scriptura; it's a collective thing--which, to my way of thinking, takes it into the realm of tradition.

[Akoue]

Having grown up and lived for years in the heady atmosphere of the Lutheran version of sola scriptura, I now am conflicted (thanks, Akoue!).

A little conflict is good for the soul. If often leads to deeper understanding and a more mature faith. Besides, as you and Joe and Fred and De Maria know, I'm still dealing with my own conflicts about divinization. It's fun though; and definitely good for the soul. (Oops, I'm repeating myself again.)

Lutherans have their own version of Tradition in that they accept the writings/teachings of certain Church Fathers and in particular, their own Martin Luther.

This is how it has always seemed to me. I had a patristics professor years ago who was a Lutheran and a well-respected theologian. It was he who first introduced me to the trend in Luther scholarship away from the sort of sola scriptura one finds among fundamentalists. In fact, he spent a lot of time talking about Tradition in the early Church, so much so that I had at first assumed him to be Orthodox. But you are definitely right about the Church Fathers: Luther accorded profound weight to Augustine (of course, Luther had been a member of the Augustinian order) and explicitly regarded much of his theology as authoritative.

They accept the three Trinitarian creeds (written by Church Fathers) and practice the tradition of teaching those who want to hear and learn.

And Luther accepted all the councils through Chalcedon. A number of Luther scholars hold that he was far less hostile to Tradition than the received view of him. Similarly, a number of scholars think that he was less a sola-scripturist than he has been portrayed a being (a sense one gets from many of his commentaries) and that it was Melancthon who was the real radical. It is important to remember the dim view that Luther took of people like Carlstadt.

Lutherans do not individually practice sola scriptura; it's a collective thing--which, to my way of thinking, takes it into the realm of tradition.

Again, this is how it looks to me. And certainly the work of Cullmann and van Campenhausen, two very widely respected Lutheran scholars and theologians whose work on the early Church has influenced scholars of all stripes (including the current Pope, who has had some very favorable things to say about Cullmann's work in particular), bears this out. The leading Lutheran scholars of the NT and early Church clearly recognize, and call attention to, the centrality of Tradition.

[sndbay]

If you mean by quench is “to put out or extinguish” I agree.

So never do we quench the spirit ... we acknowledge rather that God has HIS plan for all things..

But how do you know whether or not it is the Holy Spirit? Are we to give credence to private revelations?

When the spirit is in you, you do know... (neither judge anyone else at anytime)

Who is more abundant or less is not our decision.. For we know members are in Christ, and He in them.

1 Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

I agree whole heartedly, except that I don't think you would agree with me as to which 'Church.'

Quench not the Spirit..

1 Cr 12:24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that [part] which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

So how do we discern which Church is correct and which isn't?

1 Corinthains 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ

So then, does the Spirit tell different Churches different absolute Truths, i.e. one Church is as good as another?

JoeT

1 Thess 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

1 Thess 5:16-23
Rejoice evermore.

Pray without ceasing.

In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

Quench not the Spirit.

Despise not prophesyings.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Tj3]

And what verse says we should depend on no other source but Scripture?

If scripture says that is is complete, and all that you need to know, then what exactly will you get from somewhere else that will add to what scipture provides you with respect to truth in doctrine? If it tells you what scripture says, then clearly it is the standard. If it tells you something else, then clearly it is leading you away from the truth.

In fact Paul teaches that Timothy should teach. 11 These things command and teach: (1 Tim 4:11). He didn't tell Timothy to write Scripture or read Sctipture. But to 'TEACH.'

So you think that Paul got his doctrine from somewhere else? What does scripture say about the men of Berea when they went to scripture to see if what he was saying was true?

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

I'll believe that what you say about teaching might carry some weight in your favour if you can show me where it says to teach something other than what God's word says.

[JoeT777]

Tom, et al:

Holding the Sola Scriptura view how do you answer these contradictions?

This presents a nexus of difficulties which sola-scripturists simply cannot resolve without violating the doctrine of sola scriptura: Many books of the of the NT weren't attributed to, say Matthew or whomever, until at least a century after Christ's death, and so without appeal to Tradition there is no way to settle (a) who wrote them and (b) which books should be included in the NT. (Luther, recall, wished to remove James, Jude, and Revelation. By his own account, he rejected Maccabees on the ground that it would seem to support the doctrine of Purgatory, a doctrine which he had antecendtly come to reject.)

These contradictions form the screen door in the little submarine sailed by the interpreted-by- me-crowd.

JoeT

[Akoue]

If scripture says that is is complete, and all that you need to know, then what exactly will you get from somewhere else that will add to what scipture provides you with respect to truth in doctrine?

Where does Scripture say that it is "complete"? What canon of Scripture is "complete" and where does Scripture list the books that belong to that canon? Where does Scripture say that "all you need to know" is Scripture?

If it tells you what scripture says, then clearly it is the standard. If it tells you something else, then clearly it is leading you away from the truth.

I provided several passages that clearly indicate a standard other than Scripture, namely oral Tradition. It might be a good idea for you to explain how it is that you read each of these in such a way as to indicate that there is in fact no other standard besides Scripture. It might also be a good idea were you to provide some passages that clearly state that Scripture alone is the sole standard. (Then maybe you can tell us where Scripture tells us which texts belong to the canon of Scripture and so consitute the sole standard as you understand it.

So you think that Paul got his doctrine from somewhere else? What does scripture say about the men of Berea when they went to scripture to see if what he was saying was true?

No one denies that Scripture is a standard (or that Scripture is part of the standard). So we are all agreed on the importance of Scripture. As I quite clearly explained, opponents of the doctrine of sola scriptura do not deny the importance of Scripture. The question is whether Scripture alone constitutes the whole of God's revelation, whether it alone is the sole standard. I've given reasons to think that it is not. Why don't you provide a response, one that clearly demonstrates the errors of which you take me, and those who agree with me, to be guilty.

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

Right, Scripture is important. No one is denying that. In the case of the Bereans, Scripture was the OT. Did the Bereans learn anything from Paul? If so, then what they learned must have been an addition to the Scriptures they were searching, something that those Scriptures did not themselves say. Like the Eunuch in Acts 8, they needed someone to guide their reading of Scripture. So we are all agreed that the OT is Scriptural and is part of the canon of Scripture. What about the NT? How do you respond to the objections I raised to the doctrine of sola scriptura?

I'll believe that what you say about teaching might carry some weight in your favour if you can show me where it says to teach something other than what God's word says.

I've provided several passages that speak of a teaching that is oral. Do you mean to deny the importance of what was taught orally? Perhaps you could go back to my post from earlier today and explain the error of my ways, clearly indicating along the way what Scriptural grounds you have for (1) using the canon that you do and (2) restricting God's revelation (or, to put it as you have above, "the standard") to those Scriptures that you regard as canonical. What Scriptures support your view? Please show us the nature of the error you take me to have made regarding the passages I listed earlier.

Thanks.

[JoeT777]

I don't believe it is anyone's desire to "poo poo" 2Tim.3.14-17. But it is important, since this is after all Holy Scripture, not to misrepresent what it says. As RickJ has already demonstrated in post #6, this passage does not by any means endorse the doctrine of sola scriptura; instead it tells us that "the sacred writings" (i.e., the Septuagint, including books which are regarded by many as deuterocanonical) are useful for the purposes of instruction and are inspired by God. Now this is nothing which "they"--i.e., those participants in this discussion who reject the doctrine of sola scriptura on the grounds that it is not Biblical--disagree. Quite the contrary. Surely the frequency with which Catholic posters here cite and discuss Scripture gives the lie to the idea that somehow Catholics just don't care about the Bible. It is rather the case that Catholics do not regard the Bible the the whole of God's revelation to his people: Scripture is only a part--albeit an essential and indispensable part--of that revelation.

And Catholics are by no means alone in this. The doctrine of sola scriptura is itself a relatively recent theological innovation, one which was utterly foreign to the earliest Christians. We know that the very first Christians did not hold this doctrine since the NT hadn't yet been written, and it took some time after the books of the NT were written for them to circulate at all widely. We know that the generation of Christians after them didn't endorse this doctrine because it is absent from their writings and because their writings show us that they regarded oral Tradition as no less divinely inspired than the books of Scripture themselves. We know that the generation after that also regarded Tradition as divinely inspired because the writings of this period included Tradition along with Scripture and apostolic succession in the rule of faith. And so it goes for each succeeding generation of Christians until we get to the Rennaissence. It was then that the doctrine of sola scriptura made its first appearance.

But, it will be said, the mere fact that Tradition had always been regarded as enjoying equal standing with Scripture is insufficient to prove that each generation of Christians wasn't in error, beginning with the first generation for whom there was as yet no NT. But think for a moment what that commits one to saying: It commits one to the view that Christ failed to keep his promise, that the Paraclete was not in fact sent to preserve the Church that Christ had established from error. Leaving to one side the question whether the Church established by Christ was one and the same as the Catholic Church, it requires one to hold that from the very beginning, the Holy Spirit failed to guide the people of God, this for the reason that not only is there no evidence that the early Christians held the doctrine of sola scriptura but the existing evidence is, in fact, univocal that they recognized Tradition as having equal standing with Scripture.

There are some who pay no attention to what the history of our faith teaches us about such questions, who adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura despite overwhelming historical evidence--evidence accepted by, among others, most prominent Lutheran historians--that this doctrine is a sixteenth century theological innovation without historical precedent in the earliest centuries of Christianity. What then can justify the doctrine of sola scriptura? Well, by its own lights, it ought to be--nay, must be, on pain of inconsistency--be justified by Scripture itself. There are, however, insuperable difficulties facing this attempt at justification.

First, there is the question about which books are to be recognized as Scriptural. The only existing canon recognized by the NT is the OT, including the so-called "apocryphal" books rejected by most sola-scripturists. It has long been recognized that the NT itself refers to, and even quotes, texts which are exluded by the overwhelming majority of sola-scripturists from their preferred canons of Scripture, a fact which gave Luther (though not Calvin) considerable pause. This would mean that, among others, the book of Enoch ought to be regarded as divine Scripture--if, that is, we are to use the NT as our guide to which texts are canonical and which are not. But this poses the additional problem of determining which texts belong in the NT: The only place where the NT gives us a clear indication of the canonicity of any of the texts now included in the received canon of the NT is at 2Peter 3.16, where it is clear that some of Paul's letter had come to be regarded as Scriptural. Sadly, no mention is made of which letters, so that doesn't help us very much. The titles of most of the books of the NT were not assigned to them until the second century, so the NT doesn't even let us know whether, for instance, the Gospel of Matthew was in fact written by Matthew. This is itself something that is received as a matter of Tradition. This presents a nexus of difficulties which sola-scripturists simply cannot resolve without violating the doctrine of sola scriptura: Many books of the of the NT weren't attributed to, say Matthew or whomever, until at least a century after Christ's death, and so without appeal to Tradition there is no way to settle (a) who wrote them and (b) which books should be included in the NT. (Luther, recall, wished to remove James, Jude, and Revelation. By his own account, he rejected Maccabees on the ground that it would seem to support the doctrine of Purgatory, a doctrine which he had antecendtly come to reject.)

Second, there is the fact that Scripture itself not only fails to espouse the doctrine of sola scriptura, it expressly endorses the normative worth of oral Tradition. Some of these passages have already been mentioned by RickJ and De Maria, but it is worth mentioning them again, alongside several others, since the proponents of sola scriptura have yet to address them. They include:

1Cor.11.2: "maintain the traditions just as I have handed them on to you"
1Cor.11.23: "you received from the Lord what I also handed on to you"
1Cor.15.3: "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn received" (what follows is essentially a creed)
Eph.4.2: "For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus"
2Thess.2.15: "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter"
1Tim.4.16: "you will save both yourself and your hearers"
1Tim.6.20: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you"
2Tim.1.13: "Hold fast to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me"
2Tim.2.2: "what you have heard from me through my many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well"
2Tim.3.14: "continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"
Heb.2.1: again mention is made of "what you have heard"
Heb.2.3: "it was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him"
Heb.13.7: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you"
2Pet.3.2: ""remember the words spoken in the past"; "spoken through your apostles"

Now to Catholics, and to the many non-Catholics who recognize the authority of Tradition, the doctrine of sola scriptura looks like the outright rejection of a vast portion of God's revelation to us. There is a tendency for some sola-scripturists to paint the Catholic, et al., position as one that is deflationary about Scripture, one that fails to accord God's revelation its proper due. But, as we can see, it is the sola-scripturist who is guilty of devaluing God's revelation, by adhering to only one part of it and disregarding the rest. It is thus not surprising to find disagreements about the meaning of Scripture: Catholics and others hold the Biblical view that Tradition, that the teaching authority of those who exercise ecclesial authority (exousia) ought to guide us in reading Scripture. In Acts 8, Philip asks the Eunuch who is a dutiful reader of Scripture the following question: "'Do you understand what you are reading?'" And the Eunuch replies, "'How can I, unless someone guides me?'" This is sound thinking. And we know that it is important that those who guide others be given teh authority to do so, since Acts 15.24 records the displeasure of the Apostles with those who proceed "without instructions from us". For Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and others, this authority is one that was given to the Twelve and passed from them to others. And we know that this authority is trasnmissable because we see its transmission in the NT itself, as some are given the authority to teache by the Apostles and those whom the Apostles have appointed. But we can set the issue of Apostolic Succession to one side for now. In the meantime, it remains for the sola-scripturists among us to show, for every one of that passages cited above, that it is not in fact talking about oral Tradition. Then he or she must provide unambiguous Scriptural evidence that the Bible itself endorses the doctrine of sola scriptura. This will require more than passages which affirm the value of Scripture, since this is not in doubt. Then, once such evidence has been proffered, some account has to be given of the means by which the sola-scripturist arrives at his or her preferred canon of Scripture, this for the reason that, as pointed out above, the NT nowhere indicates which books are to be accounted canonical.

Good luck with that.

I think this is a super response. Tell your boss I said you deserve a raise! I'll sign off on a big raise. It encapsulates the entire Sola Scriptura issue, with plenty to ponder.
How, are the cosmic issues of life and faith in God resolved subjectively, within one’s own authority?

JoeT

[Tj3]

Tom, et al:

Holding the Sola Scriptura view how do you answer these contradictions?

These contradictions form the screen door in the little submarine sailed by the interpreted-by- me-crowd.

JoeT

We still don't know who wrote all of them - so what? Where is the supposed contradiction?

[Tj3]

Where does Scripture say that it is "complete"?

Get with the program and read my prior posts before responding, then you will understand what is being said.

[Tj3]

Having grown up and lived for years in the heady atmosphere of the Lutheran version of sola scriptura, I now am conflicted (thanks, Akoue!). Lutherans have their own version of Tradition in that they accept the writings/teachings of certain Church Fathers and in particular, their own Martin Luther.

That is the problem. Scripture is not denominational and neither was Jesus - he did not found a denomination- all Christians accept the 66 books of the Bible. What is denominational and what varies is what various denominations add to wha the Bible says.

[JoeT777]

If scripture says that is is complete, and all that you need to know, then what exactly will you get from somewhere else that will add to what scipture provides you with respect to truth in doctrine? If it tells you what scripture says, then clearly it is the standard. If it tells you something else, then clearly it is leading you away from the truth.

We know what you THINK Scriptures say. But quote some passage that says, “complete, and all that you need”.

So you think that Paul got his doctrine from somewhere else? What does scripture say about the men of Berea when they went to scripture to see if what he was saying was true?

Yes, he certainly didn’t have New Testament Scriptures to read. What do you think he was doing all those years after being struck by the ‘light’? Writing his epistles so that he can then turnaround and read them, and thereby becoming enlightened? Boy, even that one doesn’t take much wattage.

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. NKJV

So they searched the New Testaments? Or the Septuagint, maybe even the book of Maccabees?

I'll believe that what you say about teaching might carry some weight in your favour if you can show me where it says to teach something other than what God's word says.

Where is it implied or stated that they taught anything else but orthodox Catholic faith?

JoeT